Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the obvious fetch: returns up to 20 most recent events, and should be polled periodically. It does not describe error handling or token expiration, but for a simple polling read tool it is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose, token source, result cap, and polling guidance are all present and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential operational details: what is returned, the cap of 20 events, and the polling instruction. It could mention token validity or empty results, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the token parameter is already described as the poll token from watch_wallet. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that the token exists specifically when no webhook_url was given, which helps the agent understand the token's provenance and conditionality.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('recorded alert events for a watch token'), and ties the token to watch_wallet. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: watch_wallet creates/returns the token, while get_alerts consumes it, and wallet_activity is a different data source.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states exactly when to use this tool: with a token returned by watch_wallet when no webhook_url was given. It also gives the explicit instruction to poll periodically. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.